Malaysian airlines has lost a 777

[NikolaeVarius]

Don't they have GPS on planes to tell them exactly where the last contact was or something?

This all seems strange....

Which is powered by the engines. ATS fails if A) The plane loses power or B) the plane is in pieces..

That's not always true. The Air France flight that crashed in the mid atlantic likely stalled out, yet no distress was ever sent. The stall alert went off.. But pilot error made it even worse.

Plus if it did stall, it would have crashed in one giant piece some where and theoretically, should be much easier to locate.

This is indeed a weird case, however. Most evidence points to fragmenting at high altitude, but the source of that is tough to pin point.

That was a combination of tons of bad variables. The main reason they didn't call a distress was that both pilots were COMPLETELY consumed with trying to figure out WTF was happening to the plane. Their crash wasn't a simple stall issue, it was the fact that to the pilots every single system on their plane was failing, which is supposed to be impossible and they ended up stalling out because their instruments were all giving bad information, which combined with a dark storm that made visual identifaction impossible, they probably didn't even reason they were in a flat spiral stall.

In fact, they did tests on experianced pilots in simulators which gave feedback similar to what the pilots on that france flgiht would have experianced, and even those pilots said that the were shaken by what the airplane was signaling because it didn't make any sense and it should be impossible for all those systems to be failing the way they did.

 

[jaedaliu]

Yes, there would be lots of debris but currents may have dispersed a lot already. When AF447 went down I believe that they had found floating wreckage by the next day.

Either way, if it were a water landing there should be something out there, I think that the oil slick properly is a good clue, I'm not sure if you have seen the photos of it, but it's fairly large. The current is clearly moving it, though.

For comparison, the AF447 slick found the day after.

Malaysian officials have announced the oil slicks are not of aircraft origin.

Sooooo can't they just triangulate the GPS location from the cell phone?

Probably not at this point. The cell phone needs to be working and in range. My guess is that it's neither.

i question that, assuming it had an issue at 35k feet and blew up for whatever reason, what are the chances that EVERYTHING got incinerated? wouldent there be debris everywhere, tons of things on planes float,, paper, plastic, foam, people, luggage,....

My guess, very unlikely. Anything about explosions and altitudes are guesses until they start recovering physical evidence.

 

[Anubis]

My guess, very unlikely. Anything about explosions and altitudes are guesses until they start recovering physical evidence.

agree. seems more likely it hit the water intact and sank. if it didnt break up there would be very little if any debris

 

[Pardus]

I'm beginning to think the plane is now on the LOST island. Isn't this all kinda bizarre?

Can't you pretty easily see a giant cloud of airplane parts on modern radar?

In 2009, it took five days for search and rescue teams to find Air France Flight 447 from Rio de Janeiro to Paris after the Airbus A330 plunged into the Atlantic Ocean, killing all 228 on board. t took another three years for investigators to report that ice crystals had most likely blocked the plane’s air speed sensors, eventually leading to the plane to stall.

It's been 36 hours now and counting and no sign of the plane, not good.

 

[Markbnj]

Doesn't matter. Even if the aircraft entered stall (Which is obscenely difficult to do with modern airplanes or any airplane withinthe last 30 years) There is no reason for the aircraft to drop from radar like that.

Primary radar should have kept a lock and the aircraft transponder would still have worked broadcasting its location.

Also with 35,000 feet to work with, unless you're in a flat spiral stall, the plane should have been able to recover from most stalls. The pilots also would have plenty of time to radio a distress call. Only one pilot flies the plane.

I think you missed my point. I was responding to the idea that the plane must not have stalled because it wasn't reported on the radio. In fact a stall from which the pilot fails to recover is almost never reported on radio.

As for the difficulty of stalling modern aircraft, I'll let pilots respond. As far as I know all you have to do with any of them is reduce power and pull the nose up. I don't think there is a stall-proof design. There are designs that will recover more reliably.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I think you missed my point. I was responding to the idea that the plane must not have stalled because it wasn't reported on the radio. In fact a stall from which the pilot fails to recover is almost never reported on radio.

As for the difficulty of stalling modern aircraft, I'll let pilots respond. As far as I know all you have to do with any of them is reduce power and pull the nose up. I don't think there is a stall-proof design. There are designs that will recover more reliably.

Even if they didn't report it on the radio, the ATS wouldn't have cut out from just a stall condition and ground control would have immediatley known that it was losing altitude for an unknown reason.

As for stalling the aircraft obviously you CAN stall it if you try to do it. Kind of like how I can wreck a car engine by red lining it for as long as possible. But otherwise, you're going to have a hard time non-purposefully putting an aircraft into a full stall. A 777 has about a 17-19 degree stall angle on its airfoil from what I remember.

Unless you're in a flat spiral stall and/or actively attemping to prevent the nose from going back down, the nose will drop back down, and in doing so, gain airspeed and recover lift.

I'm an aero-engineer. I study this stuff.

 

[Saint Nick]

Nice, got all the experts on the forum... lmao

A+ thread

 

[Markbnj]

Even if they didn't report it on the radio, the ATS wouldn't have cut out from just a stall condition and ground control would have immediatley known that it was losing altitude for an unknown reason.

Yes, I agree. A stall would have been visible on radar, no question.

 

[Daverino]

In 2009, it took five days for search and rescue teams to find Air France Flight 447 from Rio de Janeiro to Paris after the Airbus A330 plunged into the Atlantic Ocean, killing all 228 on board. t took another three years for investigators to report that ice crystals had most likely blocked the plane’s air speed sensors, eventually leading to the plane to stall.

It's been 36 hours now and counting and no sign of the plane, not good.

That's not totally true, about AF447. The censors did ice over and they temporarily lost air speed indication. However, the sensors are designed to clear themselves automatically and on AF447, they did. At the time that AF447 crashed, everything on the plane was functioning perfectly.

However, when the censors iced over, the autopilot automatically disengaged. This is by design. One of the pilot, confused by both the loss of air speed indication and the abrupt disengaging of the autopilot pulled the plane into a stall. He continued to pull back on the stick for the duration of the descent until just moments before the crash when the other pilot noticed what he was doing. In essence, one of the pilots crashed a perfectly working airplane into the middle of the ocean because he panicked and nobody corrected him.

Probably one of the scariest crashes I've ever read about.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

That's not totally true, about AF447. The censors did ice over and they temporarily lost air speed indication. However, the sensors are designed to clear themselves automatically and on AF447, they did. At the time that AF447 crashed, everything on the plane was functioning perfectly.

However, when the censors iced over, the autopilot automatically disengaged. This is by design. One of the pilot, confused by both the loss of air speed indication and the abrupt disengaging of the autopilot pulled the plane into a stall. He continued to pull back on the stick for the duration of the descent until just moments before the crash when the other pilot noticed what he was doing. In essence, one of the pilots crashed a perfectly working airplane into the middle of the ocean because he panicked and nobody corrected him.

Probably one of the scariest crashes I've ever read about.

You're a bit oversimplifying it, imo.

The pitot tube iced over when it shouldn't have been able too because the weather conditions they were in somehow managed to ice every single one of them and overcoming the heating elements, which is almost unheard of.

And its not the fact that the Autopilot enganged, its that almost every single critical system on the plane started throwing tons of errors from total loss of flight data because the computer wasn't programmed to know what to do when it loses all flight data.

Of course this doesn't excuse the very very dumb move of pulling back on the stick the entire way down, which may or may not have been a poor design (Still hotly contested) which cancelled out any attempt of the captain at bringing the nose down.

But imagine an instance when you're driving your car and suddently, the RPM and speedometer just goes to 0 and every warning light on the engine comes on and starts flashing red and blaring warning lights at you with 15 completly different error messages.

Except you're going at 600 mph and can't stop on a dime. But its dark outside and can't tell if you're going straight or if you're at a standstill.

Don't you think you would panic a little bit?

 

[deadlyapp]

This is pretty much the perfect analogy to what happened. It'd be like blacking out all your windows and wearing ear muffs. Absent almost all physical stimuli and with mixed feedback, it'd be almost impossible to think coherently and make decisions rationally.

You're a bit oversimplifying it, imo.

The pitot tube iced over when it shouldn't have been able too because the weather conditions they were in somehow managed to ice every single one of them and overcoming the heating elements, which is almost unheard of.

And its not the fact that the Autopilot enganged, its that almost every single critical system on the plane started throwing tons of errors from total loss of flight data because the computer wasn't programmed to know what to do when it loses all flight data.

Of course this doesn't excuse the very very dumb move of pulling back on the stick the entire way down, which may or may not have been a poor design (Still hotly contested) which cancelled out any attempt of the captain at bringing the nose down.

But imagine an instance when you're driving your car and suddently, the RPM and speedometer just goes to 0 and every warning light on the engine comes on and starts flashing red and blaring warning lights at you with 15 completly different error messages.

Except you're going at 600 mph and can't stop on a dime. But its dark outside and can't tell if you're going straight or if you're at a standstill.

Don't you think you would panic a little bit?

 

[Brian Stirling]

Aircraft receive data from the pitot tubes and if they fail it can f things up big time. However, if they had a decent INS system as backup the computers would have been able to identify that the pitot-static systems were AFU. That is, if the pitot-static system fails completely the computer, monitoring not only the pitot-static system but also the GPS and INS should be able to determine what the faulty system is and default to the backup INS system with GPS.


Brian

 

[Daverino]

You're a bit oversimplifying it, imo.

The pitot tube iced over when it shouldn't have been able too because the weather conditions they were in somehow managed to ice every single one of them and overcoming the heating elements, which is almost unheard of.

And its not the fact that the Autopilot enganged, its that almost every single critical system on the plane started throwing tons of errors from total loss of flight data because the computer wasn't programmed to know what to do when it loses all flight data.

Of course this doesn't excuse the very very dumb move of pulling back on the stick the entire way down, which may or may not have been a poor design (Still hotly contested) which cancelled out any attempt of the captain at bringing the nose down.

But imagine an instance when you're driving your car and suddently, the RPM and speedometer just goes to 0 and every warning light on the engine comes on and starts flashing red and blaring warning lights at you with 15 completly different error messages.

Except you're going at 600 mph and can't stop on a dime. But its dark outside and can't tell if you're going straight or if you're at a standstill.

Don't you think you would panic a little bit?

Actually, that's not a good description of what happened.

You can read a very detailed description of the accident here.

At 02:10:06, the auto-pilot disengages and the copilot pulls the stick back. That sets off the stall warnings soon thereafter.

At 02:10:35, only about 30 seconds later, the pitots had de-iced and airspeed indications were normal. One co-pilot admonishes the other copilot to stop the climb. The copilot relaxes the climb for a few seconds and then, inexplicably, applies full back pressure on the stick. He would hold the stick back for the next two minutes, possibly believing the plane's computers would prevent him from flying out of the envelope. The captain takes control less than a minute before impact after realizing the co-pilot has had the plane nose up for over two minutes but it is too late. Even worse, the co-pilot resumes pulling back on the stick before the crash. All systems were functioning for the last 4 minutes of the flight.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Actually, that's not a good description of what happened.

You can read a very detailed description of the accident here.

At 02:10:06, the auto-pilot disengages and the copilot pulls the stick back. That sets off the stall warnings soon thereafter.

At 02:10:35, only about 30 seconds later, the pitots had de-iced and airspeed indications were normal. One co-pilot admonishes the other copilot to stop the climb. The copilot relaxes the climb for a few seconds and then, inexplicably, applies full back pressure on the stick. He would hold the stick back for the next two minutes, possibly believing the plane's computers would prevent him from flying out of the envelope. The captain takes control less than a minute before impact after realizing the co-pilot has had the plane nose up for over two minutes but it is too late. Even worse, the co-pilot resumes pulling back on the stick before the crash. All systems were functioning for the last 4 minutes of the flight.

You didn't make an argument. Nothing in that entire transcript disproves what I said.

The only thng you posted was that the pilot was pulling back on the stick the entire time, which is the exact same thing I said.

The article doesn't mention at all any of the psycological factors in why the pilots did what they did. The instruments may have been operating correctly at the time of the crash, but due to the pilots panic at seemingly losing control over every major system suddenly with no explanation, they acted irrationally, and even when systems regained function, they were blinded from making coherent decisions.

The way the computers worked compounded the confusion of the pilots when stall warnings turned on and off because of bad data which than made the pilots mistrust their perfectly working instruments; they didn't know what instrument they should trust. If they were level headed it would have been easy to figure out, but the sudden high emotional intensity of the situation badly effected their decision making processes.

The fact that they make no mention at all of the stall warning or any of the dozon errors going on simultaneously attest to this.

 

[Gunbuster]

I remember hearing a story on the radio that said Boeing collects constant telemetry on it's planes. Maybe just the 787 though?

 

[GTaudiophile]

^I think it's just the 787...

Are you all watching the 10+ threads on Airliners.net on the subject? That is where the experts are.

 

[iGas]

Seems like you guys make such a big deal out of Islam and "terrorist" yet you forget all the people who are killed in the name of Jesus in your own country.

It may or may not be terrorism, but we can't rule anything out at the moment. Known terrorists such as Azahari Husin and Noordin Mohammed Top were Malaysian Muslims, and there are reports of 2-4 stolen passports may have been used to board the flight.

http://www.economist.com/node/8706170

And, then there are Thai terrorists that operates between Thailand and Malaysia border.

 

[techie81]

Not sure if its been posted and not sure if its legit but they potentially found a second debris field.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4710c69b&opt=0

 

[alkemyst]

Nice, got all the experts on the forum... lmao

A+ thread

Perhaps contributing to your beliefs would be better than crapping in this case.

IMHO this story is whacked.

We have false landings, other things, people getting on the plane with fake documents and possible "Al Qaeda" links.

Meanwhile the news about those related to those on the plane is muted.

People seem to complain more on-line about missing luggage than missing family members.

 

[Mixolydian]

Nice, got all the experts on the forum... lmao

A+ thread

I had no idea there were so many pilots on ATOT!

 

[Markbnj]

I had no idea there were so many pilots on ATOT!

I played Microsoft Flight Simulator a couple of times, years ago. So I am qualified to comment on air transport operations and hazards.

 

[Dari]

So what is to keep any terrorist organization from claiming responsibilty? Why wouldn't they all try? I am surprised we haven't heard more about that.

If the plane blew up mid-air, wouldn't that go against the theory they had about the oil not being in a slick and evaporating in the fall?

Does anyone know how much of the plane is designed to float? Should we be seeing many pieces floating or would about all of it usually sink anyways?

No group claimed the car ramming in Beijing last summer or the knife attack last week or two weeks ago...

 

[Dari]

Most of the two engines would remain intact and leave an oil slick.

Oil is in the wings, not engines...

 

[88keys]

Yes, I agree. A stall would have been visible on radar, no question.

So long as the transponder was functioning.

Like I said earlier alot of this depends on the extent of the failures aboard the aircraft. Even experts pointed out that a mid air explosion is unlikely as it would have left floating debris.

Another possible scenario that I read was that the pilots may have attempted a water landing (in the wake of whatever failure they had experienced) and most likely failed leaving the plane in larger pieces that would just sink to the bottom.
Water landings by commercial jets are nearly impossible for even the most experienced of pilots to pull off. Especially in more turbulent ocean waters.

To not have found any trace of the plane after this long just seems eerie in itself. That and the fact that the stolen passports are said to have been used by Iranians. Not exactly absolute proof of terrorism, but it's a more solid indicator. The only thing that doesn't make sense is that if they were terrorists; why would they purchase (via proxy) tickets to go all the way to Europe? That must have been alot more expensive than just flying to Bejing. Unless it was just a tactic to throw investigators off.

 

[skyking]

One thing to think about is radar coverage. Despite what you would like to believe, there are large areas of airspace without radar coverage. Air traffic Control (ATC) relies on the aircraft to report location in these instances.
I can't tell you about coverage in that area, only someone who has direct experience can. I have flown IFR where I had to report my position and ATC could not "see" me at all.